THE VENETIC INSCRIPTION Es 120 ON THE CUP OF “SCOLO DI LOZZO”
Monday, 27. October 2008, 03:55:24
Abstract
Reputedly the oldest Venetic inscription, Es 120 was found in 1931 in locality “Scolo di Lozzo”
near Este (Veneto – Italy). The inscription dates to not later than the middle of the 6th century
BC. A. Marinetti divides the wording of the inscription as follows: ALKOMNO METLON
ŚIKOS ENOGENES VILKENIS HORVIONTE DONASAN. According to her translation three
offerors named Sikos, Enogenes and Vilkenis are making a votive offering to the Dioscuri
(Alkomno) at their temple, which allegedly was located near the locality of Lozzo. The inscription
is in fact a palindrome starting at the bottom of the inscription. The palindrome’s first line
can be read as follows: NA SAN ODET NOI VROH SI NE KLI VSE NEG ON E S OKI SNOL
TEMON MOK LA and is followed by its inverse counterpart running downward: AL KOM
NOMETL ON ŚI KOS E NOGE NE SVIL K E NIS HOR VION T E DONASAN. The first line
can be translated as: COVERED FOR SLEEP, MAY THE DEVIL NOT HAVE EVERYTHING
GERMINATE FOR HIM, BUT LET HIM RATHER WITH THE EYES SUSPEND AS THREAD
ON THE LOOM THE DARK MOISTURE; whereas the inverse counterpart can be loosely
translated as: BUT TO WHOM DID HE PILE UP A PIECE? MAY THE ONE OFFERED TO
YOU, FROM BELOW UPWARD TWINING, NOT COME TO HARM! The palindrome in
its first line is a hopeful admonition to the dark powers to keep a seed-containing basin free
of mold. In its second line it provides inside the message the indication of how the inscription
should be read, i.e. from below upward. The astounding close similarity of the words in the
palindrome with the words of contemporary literary Slovene language, Slovene dialects and
other Slavic languages indicates that Slavic was incredibly uniform and undiversified in the
past, so that Venetic, Slavenetic, Old Early Slavic, Old Phrygian, Dura Europos Macedonian,
and early Thracian were one and the same language.
Introduction
Reputedly the oldest Venetic inscription, Es 120 appears on a well-preserved bronze container.
It was found in 1931 in locality “Scolo di Lozzo” above the regional road Montagnana
– Este, approximately 200 meters from the Torre Bridge, at the depth of about 5 meters. It was
hidden by one of the workers for 30 years. Scholars now estimate that the inscription dates to
not later than the middle of the 6th century BC.
The cup and the inscription
The cup and the inscription (cf. Fig. 1) are fully described in a paper by Locatelli and
Marinetti [1], pp. 181-182.
Fig. 1: the bronze cup from „Scolo di Lozzo“ with the Venetic inscription Es 120.
The two original handles of the cup disappeared. The inscription is engraved on one external
side of the cup. It was written in continuo without punctuation. The orientation of the
characters appears to indicate that it should be read from above downward.
Transcription
Correct in her transcription, to wit:
ALKOMNOMETLONŚIKOSENOGENESVILKENISHORVIONTEDONASAN
The renowned Venetist, A. Marinetti [1], pp. 181-182, as other Venetists often, when
stumped for meaning, is cornered to having to resort to the artifice of selecting some very odd
names for the portions of the inscription she cannot decrypt. She divides the wording of the
inscription as follows:
ALKOMNO METLON ŚIKOS ENOGENES VILKENIS HORVIONTE DONASAN
According to her translation [1], pp. 181-182, three offerors named Sikos, Enogenes and
Vilkenis are making a votive offering to the Dioscuri (Alkomno) at their temple, which allegedly
was located near Lozzo, cf. [1], p. 79.
Some of the other transcriptions and interpretations are presented in [2]. Unfortunately,
since the inscription is a palindrome starting at the bottom, the interpretation presented in [2],
although struggling valiantly in varying degrees, offers no better results.
The palindrome
The Greek word palindromos meant “running backward”.(?) The palindrome format was intended
to contain a secret and have eternal potency. In the inscription at hand, an indispensable
tool to successful decipherment will be grammar. It is astounding how faithfully the inscriber
follows its Guidelines. Even more astounding is the unyielding tenacity of the Slovene, bucking
the headwinds of 2,500 years of tidal erosion in every side.
Starting at the bottom, the palindrome’s first line will be followed by its inverse counterpart
running downward. Intending the twining plant as an offering, the inscriber in NIS HOR VION
(“from below upward twining”) clearly indicates the inscription to be a pictorial representation
of what in due course will sprout from the covered seedlings. By starting the passage at the
bottom, he may also have intended to outwit the devil by placing the letters backwards.
Line One
Division
NA SAN ODET NOI VROH SI NE KLI VSE NEG ON E S OKI SNOL TEMON MOK LA
Present-day literary Slovene word sequence and punctuation
NA SEN ODET, NAJ VRAG SI NE KLIJ VSE,
NEGO ON Z OČMI LE JE SNUL TEMEN MOK!
English translation
COVERED FOR SLEEP, MAY THE DEVIL NOT HAVE EVERYTHING GERMINATE FOR
HIM, BUT LET HIM RATHER WITH THE EYES SUSPEND AS THREAD ON THE LOOM
THE DARK MOISTURE.
Commentary
Comparing Slovene rendition to the Venetic, one is struck by how close the two languages
are. Were it not for the word: LA (the Sln.: LE of today) (for Sln. see the Abbreviations Table),
even the word sequence and sentence structure of both are similar. Only the feature of okanje
(the tendency to substitute letter O for A and other vowels), in the Venetic grudgingly gives
some ground to the passage of about 2,500 years. And even there, this may have been due
to a dialectal peculiarity of the inscriber or the area where the cup was found. Seen in NOI
(for Sln. “NAJ”), in VROH (for Sln.”VRAG”), in ŚNOL (for Sln.”SNUL”) and in TEMON (for
Sln.”TEMEN”), in Line One and again in NOMETL (for dial. Sln. NAMETәL) and VION
(for Sln. “VIJEN) in the Reverse Line, only the feature of okanje can here lay claim to any
sort of an individual Venetic identity (in juxta-position to the generally Slavic of the time)
for the language of Es 120.
Comparison and parsing
NA: gsl. (see the Abbreviations Table) with meanings ranging from “to, on, upon,
at, in, up, over”. A prep., it takes either the acc. or loc., here governings SAN
in the acc. Cf. inscriptions M-01b and P-04a in [3], pp. 32-35 and 48-50. For
corresponding Slavic equivalents see [4].
SAN: gsl. for “sleep” and “dream”, ranging from SC. “san”, to R. “son”, and Cz. and
Sln.“sen”. N., masc., sing., acc., governed for case by NA. For corresponding
Slavic equivalents see [4].
ODET: Sln. participle from infinitive ODETI – “to cover”; v., masc., sing. It appears
from the context that ODET relates to VSE. However, in lit. Sln. VSE is of neuter
gender, which would predicate the form to be ODETO. What comes to the rescue
is dial Sln., which has ODET as the form for neuter nouns and pronouns. Being
an artificial creation of as recently 175 years ago, the lit. Sln. has to give priority
to dial. Sln. in all such cases of conflict. Contextually also, it is unlikely that
ODET relates to VROH, which is masc. For the relating noun ODEJA - “cover”
see corresponding Csl., SC., Chk., Mac., Blg., R. and Slk. equivalents in [4].
NOI: gsl. part. and conj., NOJ and NEJ are dial. Sln. equivalents of lit. Sln. NAJ - “let,
may, let it, may it”. See NEY in inscription W-010 in [3], pp. 8-10. For corresponding
Slavic equivalents see [4].
VROH: gsl., ranging from Sln. VRAG - “devil” to Cz. VRAH – “killer, enemy”, to R.
VOROG – “enemy devil”. For corresponding Slavic equivalents see [5]. N., masc.,
nom., sing., subject of KLI. See ARAG in ARAGAYUN in the inscription M-
01bin [3], pp. 32-35.
SI: gsl., prn., dat., sing. of the lit. Sln. shortened reflex. SEBI –“to himself, to oneself ”.
For corresponding Slavic equivalents see SE I in [4].
NE: gsl., adv. and conj. – “no, not”, governing SI, KLI. Cf. inscriptions X and XL in
[6], pp 17-20, 62-69. For corresponding Slavic equivalents see [4].
KLI: lit. Sln. KLIJ from inf. KLITI – “to germinate, to sprout”. V. imp., sing., its subj.
being VROH, and its obj. being VSE. For corresponding Csl., SC., Blg., P.,
Kash.,Cz., Ll. equivalents see [4].
VSE: gsl. with variations of VSE and SVE – “all, everything”. Prn., ntr., sing., acc., obj.
of KLI. For corresponding Slavic equivalents see VES in [4].
NEG: conj., lit. Sln. NEGO – “but, but rather”. For corresponding Ocsl., SC., Blg., R.,
Ukr., Br., Cz., Slk., Ul. equivalents see [4].
ON: sl. – “he”, prn., masc., sing., 3rd prs., nom. Subj. of E ŚNOL. See inscriptions IV,
[6], pp. 7-11; XXV, [6], pp. 37-38; XXVI, [6], pp.39-43; XXVIII, [6], pp. 44-45,
XXIX, [6], 45-46, and XXXV, [6], pp.55-57. For corresponding Slavic equivalents
see [5].
E: gsl., lit. Sln. JE – “is”, v., 3rd prs. sing., pres. of BITI – “to be”, serving as aux. to
ŚNOL. Due to its frequent occurrence as aux. v., it can be found in every second
inscription in [3].
S: together with Z – “with, from”; S and Z alternate depending on which letter the word
they governs commences with. A prep. taking the instr. case it governs OKI. See
inscription W-08, [3], pp. 38-42. For corresponding Slavic equivalents see Z in [5].
OKI: an arch., pl., instr. form of OKO – “eye”. With an irregular declension, OKO
now appears only in the nom. and acc., sing. For other sing. cases the root now
changes to OČES – and to OČ – and OČES – for pl. cases. For corresponding
SC., Blg., Csl., R., Cz., P., Slk., Ul, Ll. equivalents see [4].
ŚNOL: lit. Sln. part. SNUL, from inf. SNUTI - “to place the basic thread on a loom”. Its
aux. is E, its subj. ON and its obj.: TEMON MOK. V., part., sing., masc., nom..
The only corresponding Slavic equivalents are Csl. SNUTI – “to place the basic
thread on a loom” and old Cz. inf. SNOUT – “to plan, to warp, to knit”.
TEMON: Sln. TEMEN – “dark”, adj. of TEMA – “darkness”. Adj., masc., sing., acc. agreeing
in gender, number and case with MOK. For corresponding Ocsl., SC., R., Cz.,
P. equivalents see [5].
MOK a root of a gsl. adj. MOKER – “wet, moist”. N., masc., sing., acc., obj. of E ŚNOL.
Of infrequent usage, it appears idiomatically in adages like SONCE GRE NA
MOK “it is getting ready to rain”. For MOKER see [4].
LA: gsl., lit Sln. LE – “let, may it be, let it be that”. See inscriptions W-01b, M-01a
[3], pp. 17-20, pp. 29-32. For corresponding Slavic equivalents see [4].
Reverse Line
Division
AL KOM NOMETL ON ŚI KOS E NOGE NE SVIL K E NIS HOR VION T E DONASAN
Present-day dialectal and literary Slovene for each word.
AL(dial) KOM(dial) NOMETəL(dial) ON ŚI KOS JE NOGE NE ZVIL Kə (dial) E NIS GOR
VION Tə (dial) JE DONAŠAN
Today’s literary Slovene word sequence and punctuation.
ALI KOMU NEMETEL ON SI KOS JE? NOGE NE ZVIL KI BI, NIZ GOR VIJEN, KI TI JE
DONAŠAN!
The humouring freedom of the chiding rhetorical question in the first sentence, where the
devil is depicted as almost childlike, is followed by the structures of the palindrome format
constraining the inscriber in the last. Accordingly, a looser rendering for the word sequence
as well as interpretation in both Sln. and Eng. is called for. It should also be kept in mind that
the letters are no longer running backwards and the devil can now read them.
Looser literary Slovene rendition.
ALI KOMU NAMETEL ON SI KOS JE? NAJ, NIZ GOR VIJEN, NOGE NE ZVIJE, KI TI
JE DONAŠAN !
Strained English rendition.
BUT TO WHOM DID HE TROW TOGETHER A PIECE? MAY HE NOT TWIST A LEG,
WHICH FROM BELOW UPWARD TWINING, IS BEING BROUGHT TO YOU.
Looser English translation.
BUT TO WHOM DID HE PILE UP A PIECE? MAY THE ONE OFFERED TO YOU, FROM
BELOW UPWARD TWINING, NOT COME TO HARM!
Comparison and parsing.
AL: dial. Sln. for lit. Sln. ALI – “but, however, or”, conj. and adv. Cf. inscriptions W-09
and W-08 in [3], pp. 37-38, 38-42. For corresponding SC. and dial. R equivalents
see [5].
KOM: dial Sln. For lit. Sln. KOMU – “to whom”. It is a prn., dat., sing. of KDO – “who”,
having no pl. form. For corresponding SC., Mac., Cz., R., Ukr., Br., P., Slk., Ll.
equivalents see [4].
NOMETL: okanje for dial. Sln. participle NOMETL from lit. Sln. inf. NAMETATI – “to
throw in quantity, to fill up by throwing”. It is a combination of gsl. prefix NA
– “to, on, upon, at in, up, over” and inf. METATI – “to throw”. For corresponding
Ocsl., SC., R., Cz. equivalents see [5]. Its aux. is E.
ON: gsl. – “he”, prn., masc., sing., 3rd prs., nom. subject of SI E NOMETL. Cf. inscriptions
IV, [6], pp. 7-11; XXV, [6], pp. 37-38; XXVI, [6], pp.39-43; XXVIII, [6], pp.
44-45, XXIX, [6], pp. 45-46, and XXXV, [6], pp.55-57, and W-010, [3], pp. 8-10.
ŚI: gsl., reflex. prn. – “to himself, to oneself ”, 3rd prs., sing, masc., dat., relating to ON,
being a shortened form of reflexive SEBI. For corresponding Slavic equivalents
see SE I in [4].
KOS: gsl. – “piece, portion”, n., masc., sing., acc., obj. of SI E NOMETL. Cf. inscriptions
XLIX, [6], pp. 83-85 and IX, [6], p. 16. For corresponding Slavic equivalents see
[4].
E: gsl. JE – “is”, v., 3rd prs. sing., pres. of BITI – “to be”, serving as aux. to
NOMETL.
NOGE: gsl. NOGA – “foot, leg”, N., fem., sing., gen. The genitive case here is of significance.
It singularizes NOGE. As obj., the noun NOGE would normally be in the
acc. case. However, when a verb in the Sln. is governed by a negative, the rules of
grammar call for a genitive case. Here, we have the negative NE governing E
SVIL of which NOGE is the obj. Accordingly, NOGE is sing., because the pl. gen. is
NOG, as it is also from the dual.
NE: gsl., adv. and conj. – “no, not”, governing E SVIL. Cf. inscriptions X and XL in [6],
pp 17-20, 62-69. For corresponding Slavic equivalents see [4].
SVIL: ZVIL is part. of inf. ZVITI – “to twist, to contort”. In its relationship to NOGA
it means “to twist one’s foot, to wrench one’s foot”. ZVITI is a completed action
counterpart of imperfected inf. VITI. It is governed by NE and has the E between
K and NIZ as aux. and NOGE as its obj.
K: Kə - dial. Sln. for lit. Sln. KI – “who, which, that which, the one which”. The meaning
depends on the person or thing the word relates to and may vary depending
on the context. Here, it serves as the subj. of NE SVIL E, of E DONASAN and
E VION. As a relative prn. it introduces the subordinate clauses K E NIS HOR
VION - “that which is from below upward twining” and K TE DONASAN – “that
which is being brought to you”. For corresponding Csl., SC., Chk., Mac., Blg., R.,
Ukr., P., Slk., Ul., Ll. equivalents see [4]. E: gsl., JE – “is”, v., 3rd prs. sing., pres. of
BITI – “to be”, serving as aux. to SVIL and VION.
NIS: lit. Sln., adv. NIZ – “down, alongside, below” is the root of the gsl. adj. NIZEK
– “low”. Preceding HOR – “up, upwards”, it points to the starting point of the
twining palindrome. For corresponding Csl., SC., Mac., Blg., R., Ukr., P., Slk.
equivalents see [4].
HOR: dial. Sln. HOR – “up, upwards” is still in use in some dialects, but the lit. counterpart
GOR has much wider currency. Cf. inscription G-105, [3], pp. 56-57. For
corresponding Csl., SC., Mac., Blg., Cz., P., Ul., Ll. equivalents see [4].
VION: an okanje form of dial. Sln. VIJAN and lit. Sln. VIJEN – “twining, twisting”. A v.,
part., masc., sing., nom., agreeing in gender, number, case and person with K, its
aux. being E. Cf. inscription M-01b, [3], pp. 32-35. Its inf. is VITI – “to twine, to
twist”. For corresponding Csl., SC., R., Cz. equivalents see [5].
T: dial. Sln. Tə for lit. Sln. TI – “to you”, a shortened form for TEBI is a pers. prn.,
2nd pers., sing., dat.. Cf. inscriptions M-04 and B-01 in [3], pp. 27-29, 52-56. For
other corresponding Ocsl., SC., R., Cz. equivalents see [5].
E: gsl., JE – “is”, v., 3rd prs. sing., pres. of BITI – “to be”, serving as aux. to
DONASAN.
DONASAN: the lit. Sln. DONAŠAN is a nonperfective, continuing-action participle of
inf. DONAŠATI – “to continue to bring, produce, or bear fruit”. Here the verbal
conjugational inflection indicates an incomplete status of the action. As v., part.,
masc., sing, nom., it agrees in gender, number, case and person with K. It is
composed of prefix DO, much employed in idiomatic structures with meaning of
“up to, as far as, until” depending on the context, and an imperfective, continuing
-action form of the gsl., inf. NOSITI – “to carry, to bear”. For corresponding
Slavic equivalents see [4].
Conclusion
A hopeful admonition to the dark powers to keep a seed-containing basin free of mould,
the present inscription Es 120 has a parallel in the Old Phrygian, 5th century BC, bidding of:
E STAT OIAV VUN – “infertility keep out “ – cf. inscription G-144 in [3], pp. 11-12. In fact,
parallels with Old Phrygian and Slavenetic vocabulary, syntax and morphology generally still
echo in the preponderance of the wording in the inscription being gsl.
Especially, the inscription Es 120 attests to the astounding state of linguistic preservation
of the Slovene language. It is also clear confirmation of the claim by the noted Slovenian etymologist
F. Bezlaj [7], pp. 88, that “in the 8th century AD Slavic was incredibly uniform and
undiversified”. Hence, its decryption points to such a state of affairs having been even more
uniform 1,200 years earlier. It serves as a direct confirmation of the claim in [3], p. 122, that
whether one appends the term of Venetic, Slavenetic, Old Early Slavic, Old Phrygian, Dura
Europos Macedonian [6], pp. 74-86, and early Thracian were one and the same language.
Anthony Ambrozic, Pavel Serafimov, Giancarlo Tomezzoli
Bibliography
1. Este preromana: una città e i suoi santuari, a cura di Angela Ruta Serafini Ed. Canova,
Treviso 2002, ISBN 88-8409-056-3
2. V Vodopivec, Študija prečrkovani in branj najstarejšega venetskega napisa, Proceedings of
the Third International Topical Conference Ancient Settlers of Europe, Založništvo Jutro,
Ljubljana, 2005, 121-130
3. A Ambrozic, Gordian Knot Unbound, Cythera Press, Toronto 2002
4. F Bezlaj, Etimološki slovar slovenskega jezika, Mladinska knjiga, Ljubljana 1971, 1982,
1995
5. M Snoj, Slovenski etimološki slovar, Mladinska knjiga, Ljubljana 1997
6. A Ambrozic, Adieu to Brittany, Cythera Press, Toronto 1999
7. F Bezlaj, Eseji o slovenskem jeziku, Mladinska knjiga, Ljubljana 1967
Table of Abbreviations
AAcc. Accusative Mac. Macedonian
Adj Adjective Masc. Masculine
Adv. Adverb N. Noun
Arch. Archaic Nom. Nominative
Aux. Auxiliary v. Ntr. Neuter
Blg. Bulgarian Obj. Object
Br. Belorussian Ocsl. Old Church Slavonic
Chk. Chakavian Croatian P. Polish
Conj. Conjunctive Part. Participle
Cr. Croatian Pl. Plural
Csl. Church Slavonic Prep. Preposition
Cz. Czech Pres. Present tense
Dat. Dative Prn. Pronoun
Dial Dialectal Prs. Person
Fem. Feminine R. Russian
Gen. Genitive Reflex. Reflexive
Gsl. Generally Slavic SC. Serbo-Croatian
Imp Imperative Sing. Singular
Inf. Infinitive Subj. Subject
Instr. Instrumental case Slk. Slovak
Kash. Kashubian Sln. Slovene
Lit. Literary Ukr. Ukranian
Loc. Locative case Ul. Upper Lusatian
L. Lusatian V. Verb
Ll. Lower Lusatian
WIDGETIZE
Anonymous # 14. February 2009, 18:33
Having studied linguistics for four years in university and seven years (and counting) outside of school, I can safely say that this apparent Slavic translation is nothing but an error. It's a pity, too: clearly, a lot of research went into this, and a Slavic inscription from the 6th century BC would be a windfall if ever there was one for Indo-European research.
Alas, this inscription cannot be such a Holy Slavic Grail. But why?
As the authors of this article surely realize, languages are not static. Even Icelandic, with its extreme retention of millennium-old orthography, has experienced changes in pronunciation over the past thousand years. Most other languages, especially European ones, aren't as isolated as Iceland, and thus experience greater amounts of language change. Slovenian is certainly not a geographically isolated language, so it seems logical that major changes have happened to the language in the past 2600 years. Thankfully, the authors seem to recognize this.
Unfortunately, earlier Slavic languages can be quite different from modern ones - just look at the Russian in "The Late of Igor's Campaign", or anything in Old Church Slavonic. Considering that the earliest written record in a Slavic language (Old Church Slavonic) is less than 1200 years old, there is no reason to doubt that a Slavic language from 2600 years ago would be even more different.
As for the interpretations of the text, several problems are painfully obvious here. First, I'll deal with the backwards reading. I will reproduce the text here for easier reference:
Division
NA SAN ODET NOI VROH SI NE KLI VSE NEG ON E S OKI SNOL TEMON MOK LA
Present-day literary Slovene word sequence and punctuation
NA SEN ODET, NAJ VRAG SI NE KLIJ VSE,
NEGO ON Z OČMI LE JE SNUL TEMEN MOK!
The first problem: VROH => VRAG. Linguistically, it is highly unlikely for an "H" to become a "G".
The second problem: OKI => OČMI. Again, a linguistic difficulty arises: where does the modern Slovenian "M" come from?
These may not seem like much, but they are, in fact, quite serious faults. That being said, I've seen far worse attempts to explain languages: just look at the ridiculous linguistic comedy that Edo Nyland has suggested. The Slovene interpretation here, at least, is plausible, although inaccurate.
Moreover, why would such cryptic and inexplicable phrases be written on a simple cup?
Finally, I must disagree with the claim that all the names of the offerers are "very odd". I'll admit that "Sikos" seems strange, but Enogenes sounds decidedly Grecian with its "-genes" ending, and Vilkenis sounds very much like "Vilk-" and suffixes, "Vilk" being very similar to the word for "wolf" in many Indo-European languages, and a not uncommon part of many names. Moreover, the translation of A. Marinetti is far more readily understandable, while the translation given here require far more extensive explanation before any sense can be made of them.
In the end, however, even if this Slovenian equation is a bust, some good has come of it: research has been done to better understand the Slovenian language. That, at least, is commendable.
macedon # 15. February 2009, 23:10
i see...
VROH => VRAG. Linguistically, it is highly unlikely for an "H" to become a "G".?
HERALD=GERALD=ЏЕРАЛД (MACEDONIAN)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%D0%8F%D0%95%D0%A0%D0%90%D0%9B%D0%94&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=
OKI => OČMI. Again, a linguistic difficulty arises: where does the modern Slovenian "M" come from?
OKI=ОКО,ОЧИ,ОЧНО,ОЧНИ,ОКОКОРЕНО,ОЧЕ (PRIEST..НАШ)...(MACEDONIAN).....
OČMI=ОЧИ (eyes..pair) МИ испаднаа (MACEDONIAN)
ОЧИ МИ
OČI MI
OČI MI krvave (serbian)
about "sounds decidedly Grecian"..click here
http://my.opera.com/ancientmacedonia/blog/2009/02/09/the-septuagint-and-others-words-and-macedonians
Makedonka # 22. October 2009, 04:21
I can not believe that person presenting himself as a "linguist" can contradict himself this much!?
"Slovenian is certainly not a geographically isolated language, so it seems logical that major changes have happened to the language in the past 2600 years. Thankfully, the authors seem to recognize this."
By this it seams that you see their very similarities but from your known reasons do not want to accept its changes as part of that "changing process", witch can be same with the Old Slavonic or as dialects from the same living in different areas around the globe.
If you know that changes are unavoidable in period of time, than how come that you do not accept them as such?
And by your logic languages spoken in America, England or Australia can NOT be the same therefore all called "English", just because even as present they all differ from each others with a similar differences of the Venetic and Slovenian, with no need to go even back in times and analyse their all "evolutionary changes" by now.
So wish is one thing but the facts are another - specking on "linguist" side of it and presenting yourself as a "professional" it doubt the institution who give these titles to their students.